Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why don't games do this?

Game measures the amount of damage the player takes, as well as the time it takes to complete a particular mission, early in the game. If that player scores in the top 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the hard setting. If that player scores in the bottom 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the easy setting.

This feels like it would be relatively easy to implement and give players a more rewarding experience.

Why isn't it done?

 

[Sentenza]

Some games attempted something similar.
I fucking hate it.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Yes I would love to have my freedom to play the game as I want taken away. Great idea dumb_in_boxes.

 

[Fabieter]

As long as you still can change difficulty afterwards, why not?

 

[adamsapple]

The GOAT, aka Resident Evil 4, did this almost 20 years ago.

Dynamic difficulty adjustment depending on how well you're playing.

 

[TintoConCasera]

I'd rather choose the difficulty I want to play in rather than being forced because whatever random reason.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Because a "fixed" challenge to try to overcome is better.

 

[winjer]

Because a "fixed" challenge to try to overcome is better.

 

[intbal]

Rubberbanding in racing games.

 

[IAmRei]

rubber banding, but not all games could be benefit from it. and mostly wont.
and it is opposite from rewarding, some thinks that it is not rewarding at all.

 

[mayham2199]

Don't mind it as an option for people to use but I personally would never use it.

 

[Dr Cowley]

Unreal Tournament had a difficulty like this, it was great for the last fight against xan Kriegor, an awesome back and forth where neither of us lead by more than 2 kills.

 

[Bombolone]

Bleh.
I don’t need everything in life catered/algorithmed for me.
It would fit right in with how we treat people today.
I prefer goals and challenges to overcome.

 

[AV]

Some games do do this. I clearly remember the Resident Evil 2 remake's zombies getting more resilient the more headshots I got off on them. Then you might die a couple of times and suddenly they were weaker. Worked well.

 

[hemo memo]

Why would you punish the player for being good?

 

[delfrickintree]

This sounds like a soft form of communism. I swear these rats will fester anywhere that you dont actively prohibit them. Not in government? Ok we'll impose our big allknowing treatment on kindergartners and the larger education system. Its a very busy-body, feminine trait and needs to be told NO or else it will just passive aggressively niggle at everything good and holy. Now it has come to gaming. Why are you like this, OP? Why can't we have our freedom to play with challenge or no challenge? Why is it any of your business to make everything ideal for everyone instead of letting nature play out? Are you a reddit moderator? Hands off!

With that said, more options are better and if theres a slection among hard, easy, auto detect/ dynamic. Then lets rock on with that

 

[Werewolf Jones]

Yes I would love to have my freedom to play the game as I want taken away. Great idea dumb_in_boxes.

Another e-bitch slap. Truly love this board.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Some did, some even point out and explicitly ask the player for permission, but as has been said, fixed challenges are better. There's a reason why rubberbanding is a dirty word in racing games.

 

[Paasei]

Why don't games do this?

Game measures the amount of damage the player takes, as well as the time it takes to complete a particular mission, early in the game. If that player scores in the top 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the hard setting. If that player scores in the bottom 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the easy setting.

This feels like it would be relatively easy to implement and give players a more rewarding experience.

Why isn't it done?

I don’t like this. Probably many more do not. I can adjust settings myself very well.

 

[Wildebeest]

Developers constantly worrying that the level of challenge isn't exactly correct is neurotic. Adaptive difficulty is like playing against a neurotic cheater.

 

[kevboard]

games shouldn't have difficulty setting unless these settings have meaningful changes to enemy patterns and enemy behaviour...

and due to that I wouldn't be a fan of that, as I would want to select the difficulty setting manually in cases where they work like I like them, and would want there to not even be any difficulty settings in games where they only change damage values.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

This sounds like a soft form of communism.

 

[Sentenza]

Why would you punish the player for being good?

Not just that.
It's also fairly patronizing toward the player who's trying to get better at the game.

 

[wvnative]

Many, Many, Many games have a form of dynamic difficulty, and have for 25 years. It's just subtle, and is implemented pretty differently on a game by game basis.

 

[King Dazzar]

I love things as they are - you need something to measure against. Manual difficulty settings also can add depth/longevity to New Game+ replays. If you have some shitty auto adjust, you'd be further removing something to work towards and likely remove some replayability.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

This is not some new idea you're having, countless games have something like this, most recent one I can think of is Sifu.

 

[Coolade]

The last game I know of to do this (changing the difficulty to help the player (or make things harder in the opposite direction) based on player deaths was Resident Evil 4. The player did not know this was happening and everyone loved that game. I think it's a good idea if the player doesn't know. You're just invested and getting by barely and what "hard" is unique to you without stalling your pacing.

 

[asdasdasdbb]

The last game I know of to do this (changing the difficulty to help the player (or make things harder in the opposite direction) based on player deaths was Resident Evil 4. The player did not know this was happening and everyone loved that game. I think it's a good idea if the player doesn't know. You're just invested and getting by barely and what "hard" is unique to you without stalling your pacing.

It wasn't that secret.

 

[GymWolf]

Terrible idea, i like the challenge to stay the same even if i die a lot.

 

[kevboard]

Not just that.
It's also fairly patronizing toward the player who's trying to get better at the game.

yup. DMC3 still did it best. if you die too many times it asks you if you want to play on easy. you can't even select easy before that.

this motivates people who want to get better to say no, I got this. and gives people who aren't as ambitious an out.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Some did, some even point out and explicitly ask the player for permission, but as has been said, fixed challenges are better. There's a reason why rubberbanding is a dirty word in racing games.

There's a big difference between rubber banding in a racing game and leaving the tutorial with a game more suited to your skill level. Biiiiiig difference.

 

[ComputerBlue]

MLB the show does this, dynamic difficulty separately for both batting and pitching, maybe fielding as wel,l I can’t remember but I love it. I think it’s perfect for something like sports games.

 

[Guilty_AI]

There's a big difference between rubber banding in a racing game and leaving the tutorial with a game more suited to your skill level. Biiiiiig difference.

Also worth noting i dont trust the developer to measure my skill level, i'd rather they just tell me what each difficulty setting does exactly.

 

[Gordon Fearman]

 

[Sooner]

I don't want a game to get easier because it thinks I suck. I want to get better. Otherwise, all sense of accomplished is lost.

 

[mrcroket]

I HATE it, if you find an area difficult, the challenge is canceled because the difficulty is lowered, but if you manage to improve, you are rewarded with more difficulty so you don't feel you are improving.

 

[bitbydeath]

A lot of games offer an easier difficulty when you die multiple times. Options are fine, it should never be forced.

 

[GreenAlien]

Depends on the game and how aggressive it is.

I mean, how often do you win a boss fight because the AI bugs or some random hidden variable goes in your favor?

It happens all the time, do you really feel cheated of your achievement or are you just glad you finally got it done?

If you lost 5 times and the game sneakily doubles your critical hit chance for the next try, you would probably just feel happy about your luck and good about it..

 

[Ikutachi]

What if I finish a mission slowly deliberately to take in the surroundings? Will the enemies stop bothering me in subsequent missions and become friends?

 

[mitch1971]

Why isn't it done?

Max payne on pc did it 20 years ago.

 

[NanaMiku]

 

[Calico345]

Why don't games do this?

Game measures the amount of damage the player takes, as well as the time it takes to complete a particular mission, early in the game. If that player scores in the top 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the hard setting. If that player scores in the bottom 30 percent, the game auto adjusts difficulty to the easy setting.

This feels like it would be relatively easy to implement and give players a more rewarding experience.

Why isn't it done?

You just described SBMM more or less, and everyone hates it because it doesn't work. You are very much off the mark on this one. Manual difficulty sliders are always a welcome option, however.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't want a game to get easier because it thinks I suck. I want to get better. Otherwise, all sense of accomplished is lost.

Wrong way to look at it.

The developers would patrician players based on their projected engagement with the game. SBMM exists in PvP multiplayer because it works. Why wouldn't it also work in SP? The concept plays off of the same player psychology.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You just described SBMM more or less, and everyone hates it because it doesn't work. You are very much off the mark on this one. Manual difficulty sliders are always a welcome option, however.

"Everyone hates it" and yet, all developers implement it in their games for the last 25 years because it works.

 

[Calico345]

"Everyone hates it" and yet, all developers implement it in their games for the last 25 years because it works.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Activision Secretly Turned Off Skill-Based Matchmaking in Call of Duty as an Experiment; Players Hated It - IGN

According to a recent study by developer Activision, getting rid of Call of Duty's controversial skill-based matchmaking would be far, far worse for the game as a whole, and it's got the data to prove it.

www.ign.com

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm actually OK with this IF it doesnt auto-scale too much.

If there's shitty rats and skeletons that are challenging at the beginning, I dont mind if it takes a few whacks here and there to kill if Im level 30. One hit killing them makes it look too easy. But I dont want them scaling so much where it takes 15 hits to kill that same skeleton like I was level 1.

 

[moxing]

I'm on a replay of Dark Souls 2 at the moment. Going for a poise-y greatshield and blunt damage strength build. I'm currently getting my ass whooped by the skeletons in the Chariot fight because I'm too greedy and want to just rush down the necromancers.

If the game became 1% easier because of this, I would be ashamed of myself and feel contempt for the fight if I won it. Maybe that's a little extreme, I don't know- but I want to meet a game on its terms, most of the time. Now, if it's a game with notoriously bad combat or puzzles but I still want to enjoy the story, I'd absolutely mess with the difficulty- but even then, I'd rather that be the choice I make than a choice the game makes for me.

To use a different example, I suck at Pipe Dreams. If your game's puzzle style is that, like in Bioshock's hacking minigame? What I actually want is an option in the Gameplay section that's like "Puzzle Style: Pipe Dreams / QTE / Laser Grid" but if that costs you dev time, I'd 100% select an easier puzzle overall. And even then, I'd still rather not whiff a good handful of minigames and then have the next one load up looking like a preschooler's wooden block puzzle.

 

[Calico345]

Activision Secretly Turned Off Skill-Based Matchmaking in Call of Duty as an Experiment; Players Hated It - IGN

According to a recent study by developer Activision, getting rid of Call of Duty's controversial skill-based matchmaking would be far, far worse for the game as a whole, and it's got the data to prove it.

www.ign.com

Citing Activision's research, one of the most greedy, monetized publishers in the industry...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Citing Activision's research, one of the most greedy, monetized publishers in the industry...

Literally every multiplayer game implements SBMM. Why do you think that is? Why waste resources on something, as you say, "everybody hates"?